VISHNU MAYA BHOIR Vs. SUPERINTENDENT, NASIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the facts and the question involved in both the Petitions are same, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) By this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order of detention which is passed by the Commissioner of Police, Thane dated 22/3/2005 which is passed under the Maharashtra Prevention of dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (Hereinafter referred to as the "mpda Act").

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the Detaining Authority has not taken into consideration the fact that the chemical Analyser's report which was placed before him alongwith other papers which were submitted by the investigating Authority clearly disclosed that the contents which were found in the alcohol which was seized from the petitioner were not injurious to the public health. It is submitted that the Detaining authority has passed the order of detention on the ground that the activities of detenu are likely to adversely affect the public order and create terror in the locality, though both the grounds were available to the Detaining Authority as can be found in the explanation to section 2 (a). He submitted that this clearly indicated that the Detaining Authority had not applied its mind and had mechanically passed the said order and, on this ground alone, the said order of detention was liable to be set aside. He submitted that the Detaining Authority had relied on two CRs which were registered against the petitioner and, further, the reliance was placed on anonymous letter which was allegedly sent by a woman who was residing in the said locality. He submitted that the Detaining authority has further relied on three in-camera statements. He submitted that in none of these cases in the material which was placed before the Detaining authority it was disclosed that the alcohol which was seized was either injurious to the health of the public at large or that the number of people died as a result of consumption of the said liquor which was seized from the detenu's godown. In support of the said submissions, he relied upon the judgment of the supreme Court in the case of Rashidmiya @ Chhava ahmedmiya Shaik vs. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad and another reported in AIR 1989 SC 1703 and other judgments of the Supreme Court. Though several other grounds are taken in the Petition, only the aforesaid contention was made by the Counsel for the petitioner.